[Vm-dev] Re: [squeak-dev] Squeak vs Python "smack down"

Tue Feb 8 16:26:32 UTC 2011

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 5:01 AM, Nicolas Cellier <
nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 2011/2/8 Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu>:
> >
> > On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Just a detail, Python range(a,b) are semi open [a,b)
> >> think like C for(i=0;i<n; i++)
> >>
> >> In the Smalltalk proc8:withwith:with:with:: the range was interpreted as
> [a,b].
> >> This Smalltalk (and Cog) unfairly perform too much work.
> >
> > And there's another one. In #proc0:block: the loops are (1 to: loops) do:
> instead of 1 to: loops do:.
> >
> >
> > Levente
> >
>
> Yes I noticed, but empty loop time is subtracted.
> I wonder if it makes a difference.
>

There is a huge difference between 1 to: loops do: [:i|] and (1 to: loops)
do: [:i|].  IIRC the empty block is written as 1 to: loops do: [:i|].

SimpleStackBasedCogit:
Time millisecondsToRun:
[| loops |
loops := 100000000.
1 to: loops do: [:i|]] 757

Time millisecondsToRun:
[| loops |
loops := 100000000.
(1 to: loops) do: [:i|]] 16953

StackToRegisterMappingCogit
Time millisecondsToRun:
[| loops |
loops := 100000000.
1 to: loops do: [:i|]] 244

Time millisecondsToRun:
[| loops |
loops := 100000000.
(1 to: loops) do: [:i|]] 17149

> Nicolas
>
> >>
> >> Nicolas
> >>
> >> 2011/2/8 stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse at gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>> This is really interesting to see that type inferencing can really
> help.
> >>> This is definitively a topic I would like to explore in the coming
> years.
> >>>
> >>> Stef
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi folks!
> >>>>
> >>>> Since we are on the verge of 4.2, and we have a brand new Cog VM to
> play with I felt like dusting off my old Pystone port to Squeak - Sqystone,
> which I wrote back in 2004.
> >>>>
> >>>> At that time Squeak was around 5 times faster than CPython. How do we
> stack up today? Yeah, I know - hardly a good benchmark, they all lie etc
> etc. :)
> >>>>
> >>>> I am using Ubuntu 10.10 on a corei7, so this is running on a 64 bit
> CPU.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Cog!
> >>>> ====
> >>>> Squeak 4.2-10966 (soon to be released) + latest Cog r2361 (binary
> download):
> >>>> Pystone(1.1) time for 50000 passes = 0.06
> >>>> This machine benchmarks at 833333.3 pystones/second
> >>>>
> >>>> NOTE: AFAICT running with more passes does not improve it. Also, not
> sure if I could get more out of this if I built from source on my box.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regular Squeak
> >>>> ==============
> >>>> Squeak 4.2-10966 (soon to be released) + regular Squeak VM 4.4.7-2357
> (built from src):
> >>>> Pystone(1.1) time for 50000 passes = 0.503
> >>>> This machine benchmarks at 99403.6 pystones/second
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regular CPython
> >>>> ===============
> >>>> CPython 3.1.2 (newest in Ubuntu Meerkat, minimal):
> >>>> gokr at quigon:/usr/lib/python3.1/test$ python3.1 pystone.py
> >>>> Pystone(1.1) time for 50000 passes = 0.57
> >>>> This machine benchmarks at 87719.3 pystones/second
> >>>>
> >>>> NOTE: 3.2 is reportedly a teeny bit faster. Also not built from
> source.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Pypy 1.4
> >>>> ========
> >>>> wget http://pypy.org/download/pypy-1.4.1-linux64.tar.bz2
> >>>> gokr at quigon:~/python/pypy-1.4.1-linux64$ ./bin/pypy
> ./lib-python/2.5.2/test/pystone.py
> >>>> Pystone(1.1) time for 50000 passes = 0.15
> >>>> This machine benchmarks at 333333 pystones/second
> >>>> gokr at quigon:~/python/pypy-1.4.1-linux64$ ./bin/pypy
> ./lib-python/2.5.2/test/pystone.py 5000000
> >>>> Pystone(1.1) time for 5000000 passes = 4.8
> >>>> This machine benchmarks at 1.04167e+06 pystones/second
> >>>>
> >>>> NOTE: Also not built from source. Here we run pystone a second time
> with 100x more loops and get a substantially better number.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Shedskin 0.7
> >>>> ============
> >>>> sudo apt-get install g++ libpcre3-dev libgc-dev python-dev
> >>>> sudo dpkg -i shedskin_0.7_all.deb
> >>>> wget http://shedskin.googlecode.com/files/shedskin-examples-0.7.tgz
> >>>> shedskin pystone.py
> >>>> gokr at quigon:~/python/shedskin-examples-0.7$ make
> >>>> g++  -O2 -march=native -fomit-frame-pointer -Wno-deprecated  -I.
> -I/usr/share/shedskin/lib /usr/share/shedskin/lib/builtin.cpp pystone.cpp
> /usr/share/shedskin/lib/time.cpp /usr/share/shedskin/lib/re.cpp -lgc -lpcre
>  -o pystone
> >>>> gokr at quigon:~/python/gokr at quigon:~/python/shedskin-examples-0.7$ ls
> -la pystone*
> >>>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 gokr gokr 297329 2011-02-07 23:01 pystone
> >>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 gokr gokr   9193 2011-02-07 23:00 pystone.cpp
> >>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 gokr gokr   1893 2011-02-07 23:00 pystone.hpp
> >>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 gokr gokr   5774 2010-12-11 11:40 pystone.py
> >>>> gokr at quigon:~/python/shedskin-examples-0.7$ ./pystone
> >>>> This machine benchmarks at 2500000.000000 pystones/second
> >>>>
> >>>> NOTE: I am wondering a bit about this. It tells the same whatever
> loops I give it... But ok, perhaps it is all fine.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Summary
> >>>> =======
> >>>>
> >>>> - The regular Squeak VM has not been overrun by CPython in these 6
> years time. When I wrote Sqystone Squeak was 5x faster IIRC (can't find the
> post anymore). Now they are equal more or less, Squeak still a teeny bit
> faster.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Cog is brutally fast on this one. Compared to CPython and regular
> Squeak almost 10x faster.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Pypy is about 20% faster than Cog if given enough time to actually
> start jitting. Cool for the Pypy project! And cool that they aren't that
> much faster than Cog. :)
> >>>>
> >>>> - Shedskin is the "state of the art" of statically compiling Python
> via C++ using type inferencing etc etc - so I hear. It is said to be faster
> than Cython and Psyco. It ends up beating Cog, but "only" by a factor of 3x.
> I say "only" because that seems pretty good to me given that Cog is a JIT
> and still pretty young and that Shedskin can only run a subset of Python.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> regards, Göran
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20110208/3c0de0aa/attachment-0001.htm